Bombay High Court
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. ... vs Mr. Allamin Sheikh Umar Maniyar ... on 27 February, 2023
Bench: Amit Borkar
9-fa-1266-2015.doc
Ghuge
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
FIRST APPEAL NO.1266 OF 2015
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1977 OF 2014
The New India Assurance Company Ltd
Through Mumbai Regional Office No.1. ... Appellant
V/s.
Allamin Sheikh Umar Maniyar and Anr ... Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.5219 OF 2014
The New India Assurance Company Ltd
Through Mumbai Regional Office No.1. ... Petitioner
V/s.
Allamin Sheikh Umar Maniyar and Anr ... Respondents
Mr. D.S. Joshi for the appellant.
Mr. Avinash M. Joshi for respondent No.2.
Mr. T.J. Mendon for respondent No.1.
CORAM : AMIT BORKAR, J.
DATED : FEBRUARY 27, 2023
P.C.:
WRIT PETITION NO.5219 OF 2014
1. The petition is challenges order dated 10 th October, 2013
passed by learned Commissioner Workmen Compensation in the
Review Application (WCA) No.606/F-16/2013. The application for
review was filed principally on the ground in paragraph 12 of the
judgment, dated 25th July, 2013 the Commissioner adjudicated the
9-fa-1266-2015.doc
compensation amount of Rs.4,50,634/-(Rupees Four Lakh Fifty
Thousand Six Hundred and Thirty Four Only) and medical
expenses to the extent of Rs.1,53,594/-(Rupees One Lakh Fifty
Three Thousand Five Hundred and Ninenty Four Only). However,
while deciding total compensation, medical expenses which were
held to be entitled to by the applicant had not been added in the
total claim. The claimant therefore, filed application for review
under Rule 32 of Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. Sub-rule 2
of Rule 32 reads as under.
32. (1)........
(2) The Commissioner, at the time of signing and dating
his judgment, shall pronounce, his decision, and
thereafter no addition or alteration shall be made to the
judgment other than the correction of a clerical or
arithmetical mistake arising from any accidental slip or
omission.
Meaningful reading of Sub-rule 2 makes it clear that
Commissioner has no power of review save and except corrections
of clerical and arithmetical error from any accidental slip or
omission.
2. On perusal of paragraph 12 of the judgment though the
Commissioner held to be claimant entitled to compensation of
Rs.4,50,634/-(Rupees Four Lakh Fifty Thousand Six Hundred and
Thirty Four Only) and medical expenses to the extent of
Rs.1,53,594/-(Rupees One Lakh Fifty Three Thousand Five
Hundred and Ninenty Four), while granting total amount only
amount of Rs.4,50,634/- (Rupees Four Lakh Fifty Thousand Six
Hundred and Thirty Four Only) has been held to be payable.
9-fa-1266-2015.doc
3. Therefore, in my opinion, inclusion of entitled amount of Rs.
1,53,594/- (Rupees One Lakh Fifty Three Thousand Five Hundred
and Ninety Four Only) would form clerical error as contemplated
by Sub-rule (2) of Rule 32 of the Employees Compensation Rule,
1924. Since by the impugned judgment and award, said
corrections has been cured, there is neither miscarriage of justice
and nor error of law. Therefore, the Writ Petition stands dismissed.
No costs.
4. List the First Appeal on 13th March, 2023.
(AMIT BORKAR, J.)
